Strange, and just plain weird stuff from St. Louis

The Red Wings' site's Wings-Blues recap is a pretty standard AP one, albeit with highlights from OLN, and the Blues' site's recap is also the AP version, with a few snippets of audio and video from the Blues' goal, as well as five pictures on the side.

And Jeremy Rutherford of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch grouses through a recap filled with frustration at the Blues' inability to score:

Petr Cajanek netted the lone Blues' goal Monday with 57 seconds left in the game, avoiding the fifth shutout of the season. While losing for the seventh straight game, the Blues completed a winless four-game home stand, in which they were outscored 20-5.

"This home stand was the most embarrassing in my career," Blues left winger Keith Tkachuk said. "I don't like what I see. We've got to be a lot better. Better players have to rise to the occasion."

Mike Kitchen states the obvious in saying that the Wings' penalty-killing pivoted momentum the Wings' way in the first period:

"Absolutely ... absolutely ... that killed it," Kitchen said. "You have the 5-on-3 and the four power plays in the first period, you've got to get a goal there. At least a goal."

And Rutherford ends with a telling comment from Blues' coach Mike Kitchen on how he's evaluating players for next year, despite dealing with injuries galore:

I'm checking out the character of the players."

Are you seeing it?

"Some shifts I am," he said.

Pretty good recap.

But the sidebar story is...weird. Jeff Gordon, who's always had a, well, unique...perspective...declares that the Blues' New Regime (with N and R capitalized) must emulate the Wings, "build[ing] an organization as good or better than what Detroit has."

Now I can see his point. If you want to be the best in the Central Division, see what the current top team does, and emulate it to some extent. All well and good here.

But this is where Gordon loses me:

It can be done. The Red Wings stumbled forever under owner Mike Ilitch, before finally getting properly organized. Now they have an organization that retains key veterans, generates a self-renewing talent base and fills gaps with the right sorts of veterans.

Coaches may change, but the success of the Red Wings remains constant. And given the quality of their younger players, that should continue for many years even as key veterans retire or enter free agency.

Here are the sorts of players the Blues need to produce:

And Gordon simply lists various Red Wings, like Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Legace, Franzen, Kronw"e"ll, and gives a scouting report on each player.

Is he saying that the Blues need players like the Wings he spotlights? Do the Blues need to somehow magically clone them? There's no "Jay McClement's checking skills could make him comparable to Franzen," or "Stempniak's goal-scoring abilities could one day produce a Samuelsson-like player" type of scouting.

Doesn't an article like this demand some sort of parallel structure, saying, "Well, the Blues don't have Zetterberg, but here's a guy they could trade for/draft/sign as a free agent who might fill the void."

Instead, he just says, "Here are some really good Red Wings, and here's how they play." Make these players and the Blues will be fine. He never discusses the "how."

Gordon offers a cryptic wrapup:

In the NHL, the Red Wings won’t be able to dramatically outspend the Blues. But that organization will remain smart, giving the New Regime here a target to shoot at.

By picking the same players? By becoming just like the Wings? Or by remaining a good organization to emulate?

I think he means the last one, but if the "New Regime" were to, say, "produce" a big, nasty team like the Flyers, a strongly Russian, Swedish, Czech, etc. team, or a team of 20 grinders who somehow got the job done, would that be "improper?"

I can't tell whether Gordon wants the Blues to "send in the clones" or simply "follow the Red Wing Brick Road." If you've got a better idea, let me know.